Indeed. Here is another way "The Science" gets 'er done:
"But what shall I say of such as for any kind of end subject animals to torture? I dare hardly trust myself to the expression of my judgment of their conduct in this regard.
'We are investigators; we are not doing it for our own sakes, but for the sake of others, our fellow-men.'
The higher your motive for it, the greater is the blame of your unrighteousness. Must we congratulate you on such a love for your fellows as inspires you to wrong the weaker than they, those that are without helper against you? Shall we count the man worthy who, for the sake of his friend, robbed another man too feeble to protect himself, and too poor to punish his assailant? For the sake of your children, would you waylay a beggar? No real good can grow in the soil of injustice.
I cannot help suspecting, however, that the desire to know has a greater share in the enormity than the desire to help. Alas for the science that will sacrifice the law of righteousness but to behold a law of sequence! The tree of knowledge will never prove to man the tree of life. There is no law says, Thou shalt know; a thousand laws cry out, Thou shalt do right. These men are a law unto themselves—and what a law! It is the old story: the greed of knowing casts out righteousness, and mercy, and faith. Whatever believed a benefit may or may not thus be wrought for higher creatures, the injustice to the lower is nowise affected. Justice has no respect of persons, but they are surely the weaker that stand more in need of justice!
Labour is a law of the universe, and is not an evil. Death is a law of this world at least, and is not an evil. Torture is the law of no world but the hell of human invention. Labour and death are for the best good of those that labour and die; they are laws of life. Torture is doubtless over-ruled for the good of the tortured, but it will one day burn a very hell in the hearts of the torturers.
Torture can be inflicted only by the superior. The divine idea of a superior, is one who requires duty, and protects, helps, delivers: our relation to the animals is that of their superiors in the family, who require labour, it may be, but are just, helpful, protective. Can they know anything of the Father who neither love nor rule their inferiors, but use them as a child his insensate toys, pulling them to pieces to know what is inside them? Such men, so-called of science—let them have the dignity to the fullness of its worth—lust to know as if a man's life lay in knowing, as if it were a vile thing to be ignorant—so vile that, for the sake of his secret hoard of facts, they do right in breaking with torture into the house of the innocent! Surely they shall not thus find the way of understanding! Surely there is a maniac thirst for knowledge, as a maniac thirst for wine or for blood! He who loves knowledge the most genuinely, will with the most patience wait for it until it can be had righteously."
Thanks for this interesting discussion, John. You make a lot of very good points along the way! And, it makes me consider this phrase, which I have been using more often lately, given the milieu of political ideology I work in – which you are familiar with.
You make a solid argument that the phrase is untrue when you focus on the underpinning (Enlightenment) assumption that if we can just know enough we can get everything perfect and "avoid hell". Myself, I had never heard that connection or thought about it that way. It’s good to have a new perspective, and I think it is valid to affirm that intention is what counts to align with the will of God, therefore that’s all that’s needed.
My understanding of the phrase was in terms of someone not understanding what the actual good is. For example, someone who thinks what they do based on their intention gives comfort/support to another when in fact it produces the opposite. In the case of the beggar on the street, you can follow your intention to give him money, and leave the outcome to God, because you can never know or control that outcome (true), and likely never know it.
But, if you gave the beggar money three times and each time you watched him walk directly to his dealer and pass out on the street, would you give him the fourth time? Wouldn’t you recognize that the “good” you thought you were doing isn’t actual “good” for him? So, to me it’s not so much about never-ending “knowing enough” to ultimately avoid all roads to hell, but rather to have a better understanding of the good, and the good of others and the situation in particular. I think that’s why we call people “wise” – they see the reality of a situation, person etc and the good that would enable us to prosper, and they speak to that end.
So, in a nutshell, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” could be false if the “intention” is the fundamental determinate. But shift the focus to the “good”, and it seems true by suggesting that in some cases the discernment of the “good” underlying the intentions, the situation and the people involved is inadequate. I don’t think that needs a posture of ever-ending knowledge and ultimate perfection to be valid, since it shifts the weight from the intention to the good, allowing for an evaluation of the wisdom/perception of the person with those intentions. Consider the continuous havoc and damage caused by people with good intentions which are unreflectively determined by a harmful political ideology that is divorced from what is truly good. Again, we land right back at the question of the good.
And yes, we know from the Bible and from Church Tradition many things about what God teaches us is good, but I don’t think we can be completely mindless about our actions, simply assuming we can do whatever we think or even feel, because we believe our intentions are in line with the prescribed “good”. In that case, there would be no need for wisdom and discernment. And I think there is. Perhaps that would be a more palatable never-ending quest? 😊
Thanks for great insights and information, and the opportunity to think about this a little more.
Indeed. Here is another way "The Science" gets 'er done:
"But what shall I say of such as for any kind of end subject animals to torture? I dare hardly trust myself to the expression of my judgment of their conduct in this regard.
'We are investigators; we are not doing it for our own sakes, but for the sake of others, our fellow-men.'
The higher your motive for it, the greater is the blame of your unrighteousness. Must we congratulate you on such a love for your fellows as inspires you to wrong the weaker than they, those that are without helper against you? Shall we count the man worthy who, for the sake of his friend, robbed another man too feeble to protect himself, and too poor to punish his assailant? For the sake of your children, would you waylay a beggar? No real good can grow in the soil of injustice.
I cannot help suspecting, however, that the desire to know has a greater share in the enormity than the desire to help. Alas for the science that will sacrifice the law of righteousness but to behold a law of sequence! The tree of knowledge will never prove to man the tree of life. There is no law says, Thou shalt know; a thousand laws cry out, Thou shalt do right. These men are a law unto themselves—and what a law! It is the old story: the greed of knowing casts out righteousness, and mercy, and faith. Whatever believed a benefit may or may not thus be wrought for higher creatures, the injustice to the lower is nowise affected. Justice has no respect of persons, but they are surely the weaker that stand more in need of justice!
Labour is a law of the universe, and is not an evil. Death is a law of this world at least, and is not an evil. Torture is the law of no world but the hell of human invention. Labour and death are for the best good of those that labour and die; they are laws of life. Torture is doubtless over-ruled for the good of the tortured, but it will one day burn a very hell in the hearts of the torturers.
Torture can be inflicted only by the superior. The divine idea of a superior, is one who requires duty, and protects, helps, delivers: our relation to the animals is that of their superiors in the family, who require labour, it may be, but are just, helpful, protective. Can they know anything of the Father who neither love nor rule their inferiors, but use them as a child his insensate toys, pulling them to pieces to know what is inside them? Such men, so-called of science—let them have the dignity to the fullness of its worth—lust to know as if a man's life lay in knowing, as if it were a vile thing to be ignorant—so vile that, for the sake of his secret hoard of facts, they do right in breaking with torture into the house of the innocent! Surely they shall not thus find the way of understanding! Surely there is a maniac thirst for knowledge, as a maniac thirst for wine or for blood! He who loves knowledge the most genuinely, will with the most patience wait for it until it can be had righteously."
-George MacDonald, The Hope of the Gospel
Thanks for this interesting discussion, John. You make a lot of very good points along the way! And, it makes me consider this phrase, which I have been using more often lately, given the milieu of political ideology I work in – which you are familiar with.
You make a solid argument that the phrase is untrue when you focus on the underpinning (Enlightenment) assumption that if we can just know enough we can get everything perfect and "avoid hell". Myself, I had never heard that connection or thought about it that way. It’s good to have a new perspective, and I think it is valid to affirm that intention is what counts to align with the will of God, therefore that’s all that’s needed.
My understanding of the phrase was in terms of someone not understanding what the actual good is. For example, someone who thinks what they do based on their intention gives comfort/support to another when in fact it produces the opposite. In the case of the beggar on the street, you can follow your intention to give him money, and leave the outcome to God, because you can never know or control that outcome (true), and likely never know it.
But, if you gave the beggar money three times and each time you watched him walk directly to his dealer and pass out on the street, would you give him the fourth time? Wouldn’t you recognize that the “good” you thought you were doing isn’t actual “good” for him? So, to me it’s not so much about never-ending “knowing enough” to ultimately avoid all roads to hell, but rather to have a better understanding of the good, and the good of others and the situation in particular. I think that’s why we call people “wise” – they see the reality of a situation, person etc and the good that would enable us to prosper, and they speak to that end.
So, in a nutshell, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” could be false if the “intention” is the fundamental determinate. But shift the focus to the “good”, and it seems true by suggesting that in some cases the discernment of the “good” underlying the intentions, the situation and the people involved is inadequate. I don’t think that needs a posture of ever-ending knowledge and ultimate perfection to be valid, since it shifts the weight from the intention to the good, allowing for an evaluation of the wisdom/perception of the person with those intentions. Consider the continuous havoc and damage caused by people with good intentions which are unreflectively determined by a harmful political ideology that is divorced from what is truly good. Again, we land right back at the question of the good.
And yes, we know from the Bible and from Church Tradition many things about what God teaches us is good, but I don’t think we can be completely mindless about our actions, simply assuming we can do whatever we think or even feel, because we believe our intentions are in line with the prescribed “good”. In that case, there would be no need for wisdom and discernment. And I think there is. Perhaps that would be a more palatable never-ending quest? 😊
Thanks for great insights and information, and the opportunity to think about this a little more.